Summaries
What is modern Architecture, Crinson
Modern architecture was defined by its universality, objectivity, and functionality with the saying “form over function” as one of its main tenants. There was also a general rejection of the classical method as absolute and an emphasis on new technology and science even if only an aesthetic representation of these new trends. Unified functionalism and little to no interaction between site and ecologies. The Author argues that this conception of modern architecture is flawed which and highlighted how in three examples. These examples include Neurath and the Vienna method (Isotype), the Crown Law Offices Nairobi Kenya, by Amayas Connell, and Maison Tropical by Angela Ferreira. Towards the end of the piece, Crinson brings into question the usefulness of classifying something as modern in the first place since culture and place, individual bias, and history place a large, even if subtle part in every architectural choice. This argument is a subtle push back against the idea of an objective truth in design.
Crafting Architectural Criticism
The central argument of this work is that criticism is necessary and important for the development of architectural ideas and in constructive for the field if done right. The author also distinguishes formal criticism from our current inundation of opinions whether form the public or social elites and argues that the more formal, constructive academic critique is more valuable. Most notably the author argues that good useful criticism involves sensing and communicating the unique features of a building instead of criticizing it on an abstract level (or at least that basing criticism on unique features is a necessary first step before abstraction).
Non West Modernist Past: Rethinking Modernism and Modernities Beyond the West
This piece is almost a continuation and response to Crinson’s piece “What is Modern Architecture” in that it extends the argument that many ideas of modern architecture are deeply based in culture and location and those who were in the position to make architectural decisions were western euro-centric architects; as a result modern architecture tends to have this implicit bias. The authors argue for a reorientation away from wester centric thinking even if holding the awareness of this western roots in modernist thinking. The author also argues for accurate representation so reading about the architect and the process and detailed observation of the building.
Critical Response
I would argue that the continuation and application of critical response and developing a critical method is very valuable since it is part of how we learn. Whenever we make “mistakes” the next time around we learn or move closer to understanding if it is in alignment with our values. I would even argue that it is more valuable for the learning process to have this iterative step of forward action and regression since it gives nuanced perspectives of, in this case, the architectural process on all different levels and understanding why something is criticized is vital for understanding it and its intent more fully. I think the bad connotation around criticism is very culturally based since our society is based around delivering and submitting completed work without iteration – I think architecture and creative industries are a unique case.
Application and interpretation
When looking at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina it is hard not to notice the contrast between its purpose and form. It was designed to relate to the previous library of Alexandria as it holds such cultural significance, yet its form appears more modern and at a first glance it wouldn’t be obvious at all that this was its purpose. To me this supports the argument against modernist classification and brings into question the usefulness of this classification – especially in the dimension of an objective truth or universally understood truth. For example I judge this building based on my past experiences with similar shapes or similar looking buildings, which can vary drastically from someone else’s experiences.
Take Aways
- Functionalism has its limits when culture and context are ignored.
- Ideas of objective architecture is antithetical to cultural context and historically have supported colonialism and euro centric ideas.
- Criticism is necessary and valuable for iteration and development
“I think the bad connotation around criticism is very culturally based since our society is based around delivering and submitting completed work without iteration” I really resonated with this point and would love to see it expanded upon further, perhaps in future posts if the readings are relevant. I’m reminded of the illusion of perfection that is so common in American society specifically, but has reached some global status (social media presentation as one example). I’m also reminded of the reactions some folks have to accusations of bigotry, who, instead of engaging with a learning experience, may instead shut down to potential growth.
In addition to your critical response I would say that criticism is important because it can provide a very wide range of viewpoints. Especially with the internet now, someone across the world could give a very nuanced criticism of a building perhaps from a different cultural viewpoint that never would’ve come to light by someone nearer to the building.
“[Crinson’s] argument is a subtle push back against the idea of an objective truth in design.” All of the readings from this week hint at the necessity of nuance and understanding within the profession, but I think this encapsulates that sentiment heartily and succinctly. I also agree with you that “it is more valuable for the learning process to have this iterative step of forward action and regression since it gives… understanding why something is criticized [and] is vital for understanding it and its intent more fully”; the cycle of learn-apply-critique is an upward spiral for any craft and architecture is no different.